SACD Opinions: Gimmick? Like it? Don't? Why?

I agree with most of the comments above. That is, on a decent player with a good recording, SACD is capable of measurably smoother sound with greater detail and spacial cues than a competitively priced mass produced redbook player. BUT, and this is a BIG "but", the quality of recording is the main factor here. I have purchased some SACD's that sound like crap i.e. just as crappy as the redbook versions. As such, i've been pretty selective about what i've purchased on SACD. I'm not going out of my way to buy SACD's, but if i've got the choice between a strait SACD or hybrid disc and a straight redbook version, i'll buy the SACD or hybrid first.

As far as multi-channel SACD goes, the majority of older recordings are being re-mastered by incompetent idiots. Just as engineers liked to fiddle with the pan pots ( balance controls ) when we switched from mono to stereo, these guys are in their second childhood with five or six channels to play with now. While the effects that they come up with might be cool if you were totally inebriated or looking for a "sound effects" recording to demo your multi-channel system, it isn't much good for listening to music. At least not on the majority of multi-channel discs that i've heard, which isn't too many. Like everyone else though, i'm willing to be convinced, so if somebody knows of either "killer" SACD's or multi-channel SACD's, i'd like to know about them. Sean
>

Trelja: I'm glad that you continue to post here. You consistently sum up my thoughts and feelings in a very short, simple and accurate manner. Kudo's to you for knowing what to say and how and when to say it.

Kana: While most folks here know that i am basically a "fan" of J. Peter Moncrieff and IAR, i have to disagree with him here on a relative basis. As a general rule, i personally think that relatively inexpensive SACD players with a good SACD recording is noticeably superior to the average redbook player that costs more money. That is, when comparing redbook to SACD. As Joe ( Trelja ) stated above, SACD sounds more like "flowing music" rather than someone going through the mechanized motions of trying to make music.

In absolute terms of the best redbook recordings and machines vs the majority of SACD players and SACD recordings, that "may" be a different story. Dollar for dollar though and where the mass majority of "audio geeks" are spending their money, i do think that SACD is a step in the right direction. I also believe that it will get better with time. After all, look how long it took to fully develop vinyl and redbook. I wouldn't think that SACD would be all that different, other than the fact that technology is currently growing at a much faster rate. Having said that, even the current offerings better the first generation machines and SACD is still in its' infancy.

Then again, this is just my opinion, which i continually subject you people to on a regular basis. Thanks for not having me tarred and feathered : ) Sean
>

Kana: I agree that "redbook" is capable of pretty darn good performance if EVERYTHING is done properly. Since that is rarely the case, we are left with something that is far from perfect. As such, taking steps to provide better performance is always welcome in my book, regardless of the format chosen.

If the sampling rate is stepped up, as Cylinderking mentions, there are less "holes" to fill in or "empty spaces" for the player itself to interpret. Taking that a step further, going to a higher sampling rate while minimizing or removing filtering from the signal path can create a FAR more realistic presentation. Not only is the recorded data spit out in a more flowing manner with less "guesswork" involved, there are less problems with in and out of band phase-shifts taking place. Since very few manufacturers are bold enough to build such a product, most redbook based systems suffer drastically. Once you hear the difference that such a design makes ( if well implimented ) in terms of liquidity, air and harmonic structure, you won't be going back to "mass produced" redbook machines any time soon.

SACD, on the other hand, addresses both of these problems ( sampling rate and filtering ) to some extent right off the bat. Since most machines designed to play SACD will conform to the majority of these standards, that gives it a head start / upper hand right off the bat. Less is open to interpretation of the machine / circuitry itself and the side effects of filtering have been further reduced. Having said that, i don't doubt that a "really tricked out" SACD player would sound really, really good. That is, if one could find a recording that was up to snuff to demo such a piece of gear. Sean
>